|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2012 5:14 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
| I lived in NYC when Dinkins was mayor. It was a mess. Guliaini and his police commissioners turned things around there for the better. |
How much credit does Giuliani deserve for fighting crime?
| Quote: |
While the statistics he cites are accurate, independent experts and studies of the phenomenon suggest Giuliani exaggerates his role. Consider:
� Violent crime in New York began falling three years before Giuliani took office in 1994, U.S. Justice Department records show. Property crime began falling four years before. The decline accelerated during his administration, but the "turnaround" he claims credit for started before him.
� New York was no anomaly, but was part of a trend that saw crime fall sharply nationwide in the 1990s, particularly in big cities. The city with the best record for reducing violent crime during this period? San Francisco.
� Independent studies generally have failed to link the tactics of the Giuliani administration with the large decrease in crime rates.
Rather, many criminologists believe the decline in New York, as in Chicago, San Diego, Miami and elsewhere, was the result of a complex mix of social and demographic changes, including a break in the crack cocaine epidemic, an improving economy, and increased prison terms for proven lawbreakers.
Better policing tactics and policies were likely part of it, experts say, but not to the extent Giuliani claims.
"Demographics have an awful lot to do with this, and these are very, very large social forces," said Jeffrey Fagan, co-director of the Center for Crime, Community and Law at the Columbia Law School in New York. "It's hard to imagine policing, no matter how smart and effective it is, giving the kind of leverage ... to move a macro force like crime." |
|
As your quotation shows, he deserves some of the credit. Rarely does anyone deserve ALL the credit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2012 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Titus wrote: |
Kuros, to diminish gun crime in Chicago you'd recommend the Sheriff Taylor policing strategy? |
Titus, I do enjoy the irony of you condescending to mid-20th century Middle America. Nevertheless, if you find Andy Griffith distracting, just focus on the eight points:
| Quote: |
1) be genuinely available, open and friendly with the public,
2) live and associate with the people you are sworn to serve and protect,
3) serve the public first,
4) be understanding of the foibles of human beings,
5) avoid making criminals out of the innocent,
6) try not to make arrests that serve no purpose,
7) work to prevent crime rather than waiting for it,
Eight) avoid confrontation, resolve problems and reduce tensions, whenever and wherever possible |
I've conceded to you point #9. Cops can carry concealed weapons as long as citizens can also do so.
Sun Tzu emphasizes that information is the first principle of warfare.
| Quote: |
| Foreknowledge cannot be gotten from ghosts and spirits, cannot be had by analogy, cannot be found out by calculation. It must be obtained from people, people who know the conditions of the enemy |
.
Even in black communities, the vast majority of civilians hate crime and are victimized. The thugs are the minorities. Stop and Frisk alienates the local residents, by harassing all blacks. It teaches them to dislike the police as well as the thugs. But if the police want reliable and numerous informants, they'll have to show that they serve the people first. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2012 8:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
I am not being condescending to mid-20th century Middle America. I'm being condescending to you for equating mid-20th century Middle America with 2012 black Chicago.
I am not going to dig up all the links, but here's what's happened in Liberty City and Overtown (black areas of Miami) of the last 4 years.
1) Police crack down on crime
2) "community" screams racism (Shapton actually showed up)
3) Police lay off and go door to door apologizing for shooting thugs
4) gang wars break out
5) "community" demands police do more
I'm sure the cycle is identical in your city.
| Quote: |
| 2) live and associate with the people you are sworn to serve and protect, |
What cop, after spending day after day seeing life in these areas, is going to pack up and move to them?
See Second City Cop for a police perspective on Chicago.
http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com/
The comments to posts are illuminating. They're frustrated. They know who the thugs are but can't just round them up. Victor Davis Hanson made a similar point re: the gangs in LA. Seal Team 6 could clean the city up in a week. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2012 8:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Titus wrote: |
| I am not being condescending to mid-20th century Middle America. I'm being condescending to you for equating mid-20th century Middle America with 2012 black Chicago. |
I did no such thing. I presented 8-9 principles for addressing crime. Which you promptly ignored to scoff at the name Sheriff Taylor.
| Titus wrote: |
Quote:
2) live and associate with the people you are sworn to serve and protect,
What cop, after spending day after day seeing life in these areas, is going to pack up and move to them? |
Yes, cops need to associate with the people they are sworn to serve and protect. Otherwise they are just an occupying force with jurisdiction. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2012 8:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Titus wrote: |
| I am not being condescending to mid-20th century Middle America. I'm being condescending to you for equating mid-20th century Middle America with 2012 black Chicago. |
I did no such thing. I presented 8-9 principles for addressing crime. Which you promptly ignored to scoff at the name Sheriff Taylor.
| Titus wrote: |
Quote:
2) live and associate with the people you are sworn to serve and protect,
What cop, after spending day after day seeing life in these areas, is going to pack up and move to them? |
I don't get the impression you have any worthy insights on how law enforcement thinks and perceives.
Yes, cops need to associate with the people they are sworn to serve and protect. Otherwise they are just an occupying force with jurisdiction. |
I don't even know who Sheriff Taylor is. I used the name from your list. The 8-9 principles are fine for stable areas. These high crime areas are dominated by well armed paramilitary groups that we in America call gangs. The small town policing is just not going to be effective. Police have to be very aggressive.
You're right, though. The almost entirely Cuban MPD is an occupying force in Overtown and Liberty City (and a half dozen others - see red areas on this map ---> https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=215788247616820078868.00046a22c712b49c75fc0&msa=0 ). These Cuban cops are not going to pack up and move to Overtown nor will Irish cops in Chicago move to the South Side. Now, if you want to argue that blacks should police blacks I'd like you to spell it out.
I am not arguing that the police need to go in shooting every night but that stop and frisk, informed by Moneyball style use of stats is going to be effective. It has been effective in New York (and potentially SF: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/slideshow/SF-mayor-considering-police-stop-and-frisk-policy-45234.php).
In an ideal world the policing strategy you outline would be best. I agree. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
No, that's what happens when officers start blasting away at someone in a public space. Your spin on it is ridiculous. That guy probably would have just walked away otherwise, since he was not a mass shooter (but simply shot his coworker over personal matters). Not saying the police shouldn't have intervened, but their discretion was obviously pretty lacking there, since they shot 10 times the number of innocent people as the perp did. And you're actually trying to blame that on "lax gun laws"  what a joke.
| Quote: |
| So let�s talk about D.C. The homicide rate decreased in the decade following the gun ban. Then it rose at the end of the 1980s because of crack cocaine. If a gun ban saves 50 lives a year but violence due to drugs results in 500 people dying then you�ll see a net increase of 450 deaths. You can�t even being to make an intelligent argument about D.C. until you start controlling for confounding variables. |
Look up the word "causation" in the dictionary and quit feeding people on here your BS. You admit that it is drug crime that caused a rise in deaths. Well then, that's all there is to it! It means the rise was not caused by lax gun laws. Your claptrap about an imaginary "net 50 lives saved" is completely and utterly discredited by the fact that the gun ban didn't work. In fact, if I wanted to turn your own faulty logic against you I could say that the gun ban itself "caused" a net loss of 500 lives. But I have more sense than that (unlike you).
| Quote: |
| I was involved in gun control activism in the states so I�ve heard all the cherry picked facts that people like you like to chant a million times. |
Oh, you were a gun-grabbing cheerleader for tyranny back in the US, and now you're here to spread your propaganda and lies on an ESL board? Glad to have you outed for what you are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kimbop
Joined: 31 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2012 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
People should not be afraid of their goverments. Goverments should be afraid of their people.
Go out and buy guns. Today. You are behooved to do so. Left-wingers are determined and destined to have their tyrannical jackboot thugs confiscate your firearms. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
No, that's what happens when officers start blasting away at someone in a public space. Your spin on it is ridiculous. That guy probably would have just walked away otherwise, since he was not a mass shooter (but simply shot his coworker over personal matters). Not saying the police shouldn't have intervened, but their discretion was obviously pretty lacking there, since they shot 10 times the number of innocent people as the perp did. And you're actually trying to blame that on "lax gun laws" what a joke.
| Quote: |
| So let�s talk about D.C. The homicide rate decreased in the decade following the gun ban. Then it rose at the end of the 1980s because of crack cocaine. If a gun ban saves 50 lives a year but violence due to drugs results in 500 people dying then you�ll see a net increase of 450 deaths. You can�t even being to make an intelligent argument about D.C. until you start controlling for confounding variables. |
Look up the word "causation" in the dictionary and quit feeding people on here your BS. You admit that it is drug crime that caused a rise in deaths. Well then, that's all there is to it! It means the rise was not caused by lax gun laws. Your claptrap about an imaginary "net 50 lives saved" is completely and utterly discredited by the fact that the gun ban didn't work. In fact, if I wanted to turn your own faulty logic against you I could say that the gun ban itself "caused" a net loss of 500 lives. But I have more sense than that (unlike you).
| Quote: |
| I was involved in gun control activism in the states so I�ve heard all the cherry picked facts that people like you like to chant a million times. |
Oh, you were a gun-grabbing cheerleader for tyranny back in the US, and now you're here to spread your propaganda and lies on an ESL board? Glad to have you outed for what you are. |
You have no idea what he would have done. He may have just walked away, he may not have. Some good citizen, thinking the guy was going to shoot others, might have tried to stop him and lit the guy's fuse.
As for the police, since the guy wanted to shoot it out, what would you have them do?
| Quote: |
| "When I turned around, I saw a guy reach in his suit and he pulled out a gun," he told CNN affiliate WCBS-TV. "I guess he shot at the police officer. And the police officer shot him. And one of them shot me in the arm, and I fell." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kimbop wrote: |
People should not be afraid of their goverments. Goverments should be afraid of their people.
Go out and buy guns. Today. You are behooved to do so. Left-wingers are determined and destined to have their tyrannical jackboot thugs confiscate your firearms. |
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that me with an AK isn't going to do much to scare some government guy piloting a drone in some air conditioned control center. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kimbop wrote: |
People should not be afraid of their goverments. Goverments should be afraid of their people.
Go out and buy guns. Today. You are behooved to do so. Left-wingers are determined and destined to have their tyrannical jackboot thugs confiscate your firearms. |
This is the advice you are giving to people on a Korean forum?
Really? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2012 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kimbop wrote: |
People should not be afraid of their goverments. Goverments should be afraid of their people.
Go out and buy guns. Today. You are behooved to do so. Left-wingers are determined and destined to have their tyrannical jackboot thugs confiscate your firearms. |
Dave Mustaine, is that you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ghostrider
Joined: 27 Jun 2011
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 3:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| atwood wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
No, that's what happens when officers start blasting away at someone in a public space. Your spin on it is ridiculous. That guy probably would have just walked away otherwise, since he was not a mass shooter (but simply shot his coworker over personal matters). Not saying the police shouldn't have intervened, but their discretion was obviously pretty lacking there, since they shot 10 times the number of innocent people as the perp did. And you're actually trying to blame that on "lax gun laws" what a joke.
| Quote: |
| So let�s talk about D.C. The homicide rate decreased in the decade following the gun ban. Then it rose at the end of the 1980s because of crack cocaine. If a gun ban saves 50 lives a year but violence due to drugs results in 500 people dying then you�ll see a net increase of 450 deaths. You can�t even being to make an intelligent argument about D.C. until you start controlling for confounding variables. |
Look up the word "causation" in the dictionary and quit feeding people on here your BS. You admit that it is drug crime that caused a rise in deaths. Well then, that's all there is to it! It means the rise was not caused by lax gun laws. Your claptrap about an imaginary "net 50 lives saved" is completely and utterly discredited by the fact that the gun ban didn't work. In fact, if I wanted to turn your own faulty logic against you I could say that the gun ban itself "caused" a net loss of 500 lives. But I have more sense than that (unlike you).
| Quote: |
| I was involved in gun control activism in the states so I�ve heard all the cherry picked facts that people like you like to chant a million times. |
Oh, you were a gun-grabbing cheerleader for tyranny back in the US, and now you're here to spread your propaganda and lies on an ESL board? Glad to have you outed for what you are. |
You have no idea what he would have done. He may have just walked away, he may not have. Some good citizen, thinking the guy was going to shoot others, might have tried to stop him and lit the guy's fuse.
As for the police, since the guy wanted to shoot it out, what would you have them do?
| Quote: |
| "When I turned around, I saw a guy reach in his suit and he pulled out a gun," he told CNN affiliate WCBS-TV. "I guess he shot at the police officer. And the police officer shot him. And one of them shot me in the arm, and I fell." |
|
It's interesting how Visitorq thinks the police are incompetent, but any untrained civilian with a gun has a superhero-like ability to stop an armed psycho. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 5:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ^ It's more interesting how much BS you are willing to spout to make your non-point. If an armed bystander with a concealed weapon had intervened would they have accidentally shot 10 other innocent people? Very doubtful. Regardless, it's obviously impossible to predict with certainty what would have happened, but the fact remains that in this case the police did more damage than the perp did. Incompetent indeed. And to think you would actually blame the police's actions on "lax gun laws" . You're completely out to lunch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 5:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| ^ It's more interesting how much BS you are willing to spout to make your non-point. If an armed bystander with a concealed weapon had intervened would they have accidentally shot 10 other innocent people? Very doubtful. |
Because the history of people with guns shooting at targets and not hitting innocent bystanders is so stellar?
Seriously, what magical quality do armed bystanders possess that cops don't that enables them not to accidentally hit a bunch of bystanders? Please, I'd like you explanation for what phenomenon would cause such a difference in performance.
And please explain how if there were two, or my goodness, three or four armed bystanders that they'd be magically able to identify who was a criminal and who was a bystander.
Good grief, veteran uniformed soldiers in war shoot their own guys on occasion. I don't hold out hope for random civilians.
Seriously between this and the "My AK will strike fear into the heart of the government" nonsense, the extreme of the pro-gun lobby is making the "It was an automatic gun" (when talking about a semi-auto pistol) libtard crowd look almost sane. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
